Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tormy]

This is how an isometric game looks like. I am wondering can we see a graphic quality like this in DF If toady would decide to implent an isometric gfx engine one day? If not, we better stick to top-down 2d for good, thats quite decent, and easy to make graphics for it.

*REMOVED GFX*

Now that's an interesting looking game.  Is it any good?   (I figured out from the URL it seems to live @ http://www.daimonin.com/)

Yeah it is quite good. Btw I was just using it as an example of mediocre but acceptable isometric graphics. That should be the minimum quality for DF. If its not possible to make, we should drop the isometric idea, and stick to 2d top-down, which is imo perfect for DF.

[Dogman]

Why does everyone seem so keen on isometric views? What's the appeal?

[Tormy]

Why does everyone seem so keen on isometric views? What's the appeal?

I am not sure either. 2d top-down can be beautiful with a good 16bit+ graphical tileset. Its not necessary to have isometric view in DF gameplay wise. IE: Isometric view vs. 2D top-down = gameplay wont be easier/better.

[MMad]

Why does everyone seem so keen on isometric views? What's the appeal?

The point is that you would be able too see all Z-levels below the one you currently have selected, which would (among other things) allow you to more easily get a feel for the terrain and fully grasp how constructions look in 3D.

The major problem would be that objects in the back could be entirely obscured by objects in the front. There are a couple of different solutions for this, but none is perfect.

And there's one problem with trying to implement DF in an isometric perspective: every tile has the same lenght and width, so walls and doors would be humorously thick. 

And unless certain creatures were multi-tiled, larger creatures such as dragons and colossi would be the same size as a dwarf and about as tall as a door.

This is already a problem with the current 2D version. I've always found it slightly chuckle-worthy that dragons and kittens are the same size.

[Davion]

Davion, this is awesome.

Minor thing: we don't really need the sidebar if we have the menu bar.

More importantly: How could the community get together to help generate that flowchart?  Make a wiki page, perhaps?  What data would be important?

I think the side bar could still be there because that's the easiest way to show the information, since there are usually so many options. That, or have it in a floating menu that pops up, but until something is done about window sizes and number of tiles on screen it'd probably obstruct too much.

I am not sure about the best way to start a community interface flow chart, maybe using something like Dia to map it all out, it can export many different file types.  I am not sure how practical having a flow chart would be since the data would just consist of stuff like "Designation (d) ------> Designate menu ----> List of options", etc., but it'd probably help point out areas that take too many keystrokes to access or whatever.

[Davion]

The point is that you would be able too see all Z-levels below the one you currently have selected, which would (among other things) allow you to more easily get a feel for the terrain and fully grasp how constructions look in 3D.

The major problem would be that objects in the back could be entirely obscured by objects in the front. There are a couple of different solutions for this, but none is perfect.

Yeah, the main problem I'd have with an isometric view is there would be so much clutter, if you have a good number of dwarves and a large population of domestic animals that don't stop breeding you're not going to be seeing much of your fortress. This could be alleviated by maybe having a toggle system that say, turns off domestic animals, turns off units, turns off furniture, etc. Like you said, it wouldn't be pretty, but it'd get the job done.

This is already a problem with the current 2D version. I've always found it slightly chuckle-worthy that dragons and kittens are the same size.

I think the flat top-down version can get away with it, though. The problem with an isometric view is it is a more realistic angle and the suspension of disbelief is harder to maintain.

[dreiche2]

Hm I wonder if one could have the normal top down main window and a second window with some sort of regularly updated 3D/isometric viewer... so basically use 3D(ish) only as sort of (mini-)map to get an overview over the terrain. Or maybe use highly simplified sprites for dwarf positions, too (again like you might have on a mini-map).

[Sergius]

This is already a problem with the current 2D version. I've always found it slightly chuckle-worthy that dragons and kittens are the same size.

Multi-tile monsters!

Code: [Select]

7)
 /3
This is a dragon!

Code: [Select]

O/
 LL
Cyclops!

[Andir]

I think the flat top-down version can get away with it, though. The problem with an isometric view is it is a more realistic angle and the suspension of disbelief is harder to maintain.

Not really, just make the dragon take up every bit of real estate in the square and make kittens really small.

[Red Jackard]

Why does everyone seem so keen on isometric views? What's the appeal?

No idea, I prefer top-down or 3/4 perspectives.

[Davion]

I think the flat top-down version can get away with it, though. The problem with an isometric view is it is a more realistic angle and the suspension of disbelief is harder to maintain.

Not really, just make the dragon take up every bit of real estate in the square and make kittens really small.

True, but you'd have to match that scale with everything else, which means you'd have smaller graphics for most objects in and around the fortress just to keep the scale 'realistic' for larger entities. That might put some strain on eyesight. I mean, a cat is size 3, a dwarf is size 8, and a megabeast is 20. You'd probably have to fudge it a bit but it still might cause problems when it comes to seeing everything well.

[Omega2]

Final Fantasy Tactics and most games in that genre get away with a lot of scaling stuff while using isometric graphics. 

The key would be not make graphics too realistic, I think. Like the first X-Com game: the terror missions gave a very nice sense of fighting in tight quarters, without being overly crowded.

[Davion]

Final Fantasy Tactics and most games in that genre get away with a lot of scaling stuff while using isometric graphics. 

The key would be not make graphics too realistic, I think. Like the first X-Com game: the terror missions gave a very nice sense of fighting in tight quarters, without being overly crowded.

On that note I can't wait for the day when the presentation is worked on a  bit and people start making anime-styled dwarf tiles. They don't need mining picks, they just run at a stone wall and their spikey beards cut through the mountain like butter.

You know it's coming.

[Sergius]

I think the flat top-down version can get away with it, though. The problem with an isometric view is it is a more realistic angle and the suspension of disbelief is harder to maintain.

Not really, just make the dragon take up every bit of real estate in the square and make kittens really small.

True, but you'd have to match that scale with everything else, which means you'd have smaller graphics for most objects in and around the fortress just to keep the scale 'realistic' for larger entities. That might put some strain on eyesight. I mean, a cat is size 3, a dwarf is size 8, and a megabeast is 20. You'd probably have to fudge it a bit but it still might cause problems when it comes to seeing everything well.

It's not like the dwarf or the kitten occupies the ENTIRE tile. But I don't think most people here would want a "realistic" representation of a 2x2 pixel @ for dwarf vs a 16 x 16 pixel D for dragon. They're all big for readability's sake.

(BTW this is another reason why I think people complaining about 1x3 bedrooms with everything in a straight line is ridiculous. We can all assume there's some walking space between the furniture)

[Anu Necunoscut]

One thing to keep in mind (though obviously I'd love to see a beautiful graphics set)--isometric perspective brings with it certain expectations that ASCII and top-down perspectives don't.  Namely, characters are expected to be able to face the direction they are attacking/moving to, a lack of animation becomes much more painfully apparent as units jump instantly from tile to tile, and walls/trees/etc. need to make use of alpha channels to avoid obscuring the action.  Plus a natural feature of isometricism (:-P) is more realistic presentation, and at present the wall/door/tree/creature system is pretty abstract and would turn up some weirdness once realized in prettiness.

Not saying it's not a good place to take DF, just saying the amount of work to do it right is by no means negligible.